war

When Donald Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, we were at least certain that he didn’t want to go to war with Russia, and that, along with Hillary’s atrocious track record, made Trump the lesser of two evils. After he was inaugurated, we were confident that the days of American foreign intervention were over, but we were wrong. After an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, Donald Trump decided to do the one thing we didn’t him to do – potentially start another fucking proxy war. On Thursday evening, Trump ordered a missile strike against an airfield in Syria from where the attack was supposedly conducted. All the more shocking is that President Trump, a man known for keeping his word, has decided to contradict his own stance on interventionism for the sake of appeasing the outraged. Never mind the fact that the “chemical weapons” narrative is flimsier than the Democrat National Committee’s excuses, and reeks of a false flag operation.

Now how did I come to that conclusion? Well, there’s a video that shows the “dead” victim of a sarin attack coming back to life (the same Twitter account has a few other interesting images for your consideration). I’ve read that reports of chemical weapons attacks from Syria tend to be unreliable, but then there’s the logical question. What does Bashar al-Assad, a man who has somehow managed to maintain power throughout the Syrian civil war thanks to foreign intervention, have to gain by gassing his own civilians?

Once that’s out of the way, you’ll probably come to conclusion that Assad has no interest in gassing his own citizens, as that would destroy nearly every alliance he has, leaving him a sitting duck in front of the rebels. That in mind, I think that either the attack was a hoax, or it wasn’t carried out by Syria. The Pentagon is already looking into the possibility of Russian involvement, but why would Russia frame one of its allies? In fact, what am I to make of this Daily Mail article dating back four years ago, suggesting a US backed plan to frame Assad for a chemical weapon attack, that was suspiciously deleted after the missile strikes?

While were here, I think it’s time to clear up my opinions of Assad, since I never did in this site. All I used to hear when I was a teenager is that Assad is a barbarous fiend who needs to be dealt with, but while he is a truly detestable individual, I oppose any effort by the West to remove Assad from power. The reason I oppose this is because this regime change philosophy has been done before in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and the end result is that those countries have been adversely affected by our attempts at “liberating” them from tyranny, because as bad as the previous dictators were, they were keeping the Islamists at bay. After they were gotten rid of, the Islamists were there to the fill the power vacuum left behind by their more secular predecessors, and they did exactly that, and now we have ISIS to deal with.

Simply put it, if Assad is killed, then it will create a situation where either ISIS can takeover, or the capital could be taken over by the Free Syrian Army, who are themselves Islamists. Either way, now is the wrong time to get rid of Assad, and I wish people would study the situation more before giving into moral panic next time we bring up Assad at the dinner table.

Going back to the main point, I also believe that that Trump was being misled, either by people within his own administration, or by his daughter. Think about it for a moment. Two days before the missiles were launched, Trump’s daughter Ivanka posted this tweet:

“Heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack yesterday.”

I think you can guess who this is going to work out. Daughter cries about something she saw on TV, and then Daddy makes her feel better by taking care of it. Cute. Also consider the fact that her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior advisor to Donald Trump (take a good guess as to how he got there), and apparently competes with Steven Bannon for influence within the administration. Call it a hunch, but I think Trump was being misled or pressured into striking the Syrian airfield by people who have their own agendas, and given the track records of people like John McCain, who praised the strikes, this isn’t a total leap of faith. It’s ultimately pointless for him to try and prove it anyway, because even the neo-cons know that the Russia narrative is a scam. We know Trump is not under the thumb of Vladimir Putin, and we know that Russia didn’t hack the elections, so why should he have to prove anything to them?

Either way, will it ignite a potential war with Syria? I don’t particularly think so. I think this is basically Trump throwing the neo-cons a bone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s not in bed with Russia, and that he’s not a complete isolationist. In fact, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this may only be a single punitive act. If that’s true, I might be thankful, but I don’t think he should have done it in the first place, because I know the reasons for doing so are based on outright lies. In fact, this is the same kind of manipulation that led the US to a pointless war in Iraq.

I can only hope that Trump has no plans to go to war in Syria, because if he does, we will have to come to the realisation that the supposed anti-establishment candidate, who we thought would signal the end of regime change, will have decided to engage in yet more regime change, and therefore becoming another establishment President.

Like this:

So far, the year 2016 has been a year marked by violent acts of terror across the world. The recent terrorist attack in Nice is just the latest a string of terrorist attacks against the West, and the third major attack in recent memory in which the terrorists attack France. As was the case with a majority of these attack, the culprit was an Islamic extremist, but apparently he wasn’t on France’s database of suspected Islamic militants. As the world watched in horror and grievance, the Nice attack was followed by another sign of our times – politicians and the media doing whatever they could to dance around the issue in the name of political correctness.

France’s prime minister Manuel Valls has actually said that France should “learn to live with terrorism”, as though he would rather take it lying down than fight the obvious problem. He’s not alone in dodging the issue, as various mainstream media outlets have turned to blaming the truck the terrorist was driving, in a move that is somehow more baffling than blaming the gun a mass shooter was firing. Trucks don’t kill people, their drivers do, and in this case, the driver deliberately drove into a truck into a crowd of Bastille day celebrators.

It’s not that hard to come to the conclusion that this was a terrorist attack, and yet the left-wing media doesn’t want you to point the finger at Islamic extremists because they’re afraid that it means vindicating right-wing populist politicians like Donald Trump or Marine le Pen. The leftist way of handling terrorism is to talk about the evils of Western foreign policy as if the Iraq War hadn’t ended yet, blaming anything other than ISIS and Islamic extremism for attacks that were obviously perpetrated by Islamic extremists, and replacing honest discussion with virtue-signalling hashtags. None of that is doing anything productive, and the people are getting tired of it.

This weak-kneed handling of terrorism is precisely what ISIS is exploiting. Why else do Islamic extremists keep attacking France? If the terrorist’s goal is to inspire fear and capitulation, then obviously they think it’s working. I’m getting very sick and tired of society’s inept handling of the situation, and I worry that the recent wave of terror attacks is, in part, making us as a society numb to the existential threat that ISIS poses to Western civilisation.

As I see it, people are afraid to have a frank and adult discussion on terrorism and extremism because they’re afraid of being called racists, despite the obvious fact that Islamism is not a race, and neither is Islam. Islam is a religion, and Islamism is an ideology based on the more extreme elements of Islam. The media has failed to make this distinction, and has instead created a paralysing climate of fear. Political correctness in the West has gotten so bad that the word “racist” has become the nuclear weapon with which all discussion is silenced. In the case of terrorism, people are afraid of being called Islamophobes for simply discussing Islamic terrorism, even though it should be pretty clear that the majority of people can tell the difference between an ordinary Muslim (who wouldn’t kill in the name of Islam) and a Muslim extremist (who takes the Koran literally, and would kill in the name of Islam). I guarantee that if the perpetrator was a Christian, the media would spend a whole week making Christians look like the bad guys.

I’m getting really sick of this attitude from the media. I’m not a racist, nor an Islamophobe, and nor do I associate with bigots. I’m also absolutely certain that most people aren’t racists or Islamophobes either, and in fact, from what I’ve heard, most people just want to live without fear or terrorism happening in their own country. This is why Donald Trump enjoys so much support in America, especially after what happened in Orlando. The reason right-wing populists have gained a surge of popularity is because right now they’re the only ones giving a platform to the people’s concerns about terrorism, while the media and the political establishment continue to ignore or silence their voice in the name of political correctness.

As the dust settles on Nice, I worry about what country will be the next target, and how long the media, in all its pusillanimous narcissism, can deny the obvious reality of our situation. ISIS wants to wage war against the West. That much is obvious, but for some, the danger is that fighting in the Middle East will only destabilise the region even further, and some in the media refuse to address the issue at all because it gives credence to right-wing politicians. I admit that I fervently believe that if we intervene recklessly it will inevitably cause more problems, but the risks of not intervening are currently too great. If we really want to see less terrorism in the world, then first we must do away with the climate of political correctness. Second, we need to stop sending drones over to the Middle East, because that isn’t working. All drone strikes do is kill innocent people, and thus potentially galvanise anyone who hates the West into joining ISIS. If the West wishes to fight ISIS, then, as much as I hate to say it, the only option is to send troops to fight on the ground.

Yes, this goes against my pacifist beliefs, but if what we have been witnessing over the past year tells us anything, it’s that the West has two options – it can either sit there bogging itself down in PC semantics as innocent people are killed, or it can stand up and fight to defend its values, and fight for the freedom to live without fear.

Like this:

It looks like our worst fears have been confirmed. On Thursday, MP’s voted to allow for more airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, despite the fact that airstrikes have not worked in the past, will not work in the future, and will only create far more problems than they will resolve. Suffice it to say, we’re on the cusp of another horrible war in the Middle East that most of us didn’t want, just like what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan, and once again, our leaders have used fear, propaganda, and shaky pretences to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent lives.

As could be expected, the news drew negative reaction from most of the public, perhaps the most profound sign of a nation disillusioned with a government that is apparently able to pay for war despite claiming that it can’t pay for public services such as the NHS. For me, the biggest problem is that they didn’t let us vote on it, but I have a feeling that if they did, Cameron would probably use the same trick to win the referendum that won him the last election – using cheap scare tactics to discredit his opponent and con millions of gullible Britons into taking his side.

Of course, any ignorant Cameronite will probably tell you that we’re bombing Syria in order to stop the terrorists in ISIS. That logic is not only absurd, but it sounds disturbingly similar to the nonsensical logic that led us to war in Iraq in 2003, and we all know that the war in Iraq was essentially just an American grab for oil and resources disguised as a mission to topple Saddam Hussein (we got rid of him, so why did we stay?), and it only led to further destabilization of the country. The only thing the new war in Syria will cause is further destabilization, and our government is blissfully unaware that destabilization is what ISIS wants.

Also, we tried bombing Syria before, and not only did that not stop ISIS, but it also helped to create the Syrian refugee crisis. France was already bombing Iraq and Syria since September 2014, and we all saw what came of that. After the massacre in Paris, France quickly responded by launching more senseless airstrikes in Syria, and it’s very unlikely that it worked. If anything, continued airstrikes against the Middle East will only produce more terrorist retaliation, all while more innocent people are killed by the hand of democracy.

None of us want the nation to be dragged into another pointless war that we didn’t even want, and yet not only did David Cameron insist upon bombing Syria, but he also believes that anyone opposed to the pointless, barbaric violence is automatically a “terrorist sympathizer”. Let’s see if I got this correctly. If I oppose the wanton destruction of innocent lives, am I therefore a terrorist sympathizer? I must have missed a meeting or something, but when did basic human decency become such a great crime in the eyes of our government?

I understand that the threat of ISIS needs to be dealt with, why should Britain be dragged into this? Our economy is already suffering because of David Cameron’s idiotic austerity measures, and now we’re going into another lengthy and presumably expensive military conflict that is almost guaranteed to do nothing other than destabilize the Middle East further, thus fuelling more extremism and continuing the cycle of violence, fear and barbarism just because a few wealthy individuals are bored with making our own lives miserable. Before we go on marching into conflict, perhaps we should think about how much we will suffer because of it, because our suffering is exactly what ISIS wants. If we have any hope of spoiling their plans for the world, we must not be so quick to violence, because they want us to respond with fear and hatred. In other words, if we give in to bloodlust, then it’s an ideological battle that ISIS may as well have already won. If we must fight, then we should at least have a plan, and I don’t think David Cameron is interested in thinking it through.

Now that we live in a world of more sophisticated terrorism, ignorance is no longer an option.

A decade ago, the war on terror seemed to be all the news media talked about, with the narrative of the day casting al-Qaeda as the big bad wolf preying on Little Red Riding Hood. Of course, what we didn’t take into account was that al-Qaeda was in pretty bad shape before Osama bin Laden died. They had a terrible business model that relied on charitable donations, and by the time Osama bin Laden was killed, they were hampered by a cripplingly low budget, dwindling support, and a lack of new recruits. Suffice it to say, they had less chance of destroying Western democracy than the common cold. Today, the Islamic State (popularly known as “ISIS”) are the new villains of our day, working to sow chaos in the world, except this time, the threat from them is very real.

Nothing has served as a more important sign of this than Friday’s unquestionably horrible massacre in Paris. Following the events of that day, social media sites were awash with condolences and prayer, as much of the world stood in solidarity, and the fingers of the world point squarely at ISIS, who appeared to claim responsibility for the attack. Unsurprisingly, the French president, Francois Hollande, responded swiftly with a new round of air strikes against a series of ISIS sites in Raqqa, Syria. As unfortunate as it sounds, a new war in the Middle East might be inevitable, and Friday’s attacks in Paris may just be the tip of the iceberg.

If ISIS is the culprit behind the Paris attacks, as so many of us have suspected, then clearly we are no longer dealing with mindless religious fanatics. Yes, ISIS are principally driven by an insane, distorted interpretation of Islam, but to treat them as merely “violent extremists” is no longer appropriate, as that would be dangerously ignorant of what they have shown themselves to be capable of. We’re talking about a group of militant fanatics who wish to push the world back into the dark ages, and unlike al-Qaeda, they’ve actually planned their moves. They’ve destroyed historic sites that they’ve deemed “un-Islamic”, they’ve captured a significant portion of territory in Syria and beyond, and they’ve beheaded a number people from various countries in a series of graphic videos, and that’s only a brief summation of what they’ve done so far. Given this recent tapestry of atrocities, including the recent attacks in Paris, we can no longer live in ignorance of the threat posed by ISIS.

I think there is a very real possibility of another war in the Middle East, which leaves us in a very difficult position. On the one hand, force seems to be the only way we could stand up to ISIS, and we may be right to fight this war, but on the other hand, it’s still difficult to trust the integrity of any military intervention carried out by the West. Also, we tried bombing Syria earlier this year, and that resulted in the Syrian refugee crisis. That being said, it might be incredibly easy for the West to use both the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and the recent tragedy in Paris to justify a new war in the Middle East, and thus the cycle of barbarism on both sides of the planet goes on.

Ultimately, the saddest part of the current geopolitical situation is that we may inevitably be thrust into another war that half of us don’t want, and that war will only benefit the undertakers and the terrorists. Worse still, given the response of Western governments, the complexity of the current Syrian situation, and the clear drive for war exhibited by Britain and America, it is painfully unlikely that we’ll see a peaceful solution to the conflict. At this point, let’s just hope that, in the event that we find ourselves involved in another war, we can all come to our senses sooner rather than later, unlike in the two previous conflicts. After all, the outlook for peace in the Middle East may look even more bleak than it has before, but there’s always hope for a better way. In the end, for us to descend into fear, ignorance and barbarism is the only way ISIS will ever really win.

Like this:

To most, this means remembrance of the war dead, but for people like me, it represents something much darker at hand.

One of the most depressing things about being a British citizen is that I’m constantly reminded of how little our culture values the individual, and for me, one of the worst examples of this is Remembrance Day. Every time I do anything on November 11th (which always seems to fall on a day when I’m in college nowadays), it’s always interrupted by the obligatory two minutes of silence, in which we all stop like drones on command, and that’s not even the worst part. In the days leading up to then, we have the poppy appeal, where public figures don poppies on their lapels in order to win public approval, and anyone not wearing the poppy is shamed by the common folk as soon as they find out.

This is a trend that Channel 4’s news anchor Jon Snow described as “poppy fascism”, the practice of compelling people to wear poppies because they supposedly ought to and shaming those who don’t, and this trend has been getting much worse this year than ever before. Newsreaders, politicians, celebrities, and even football managers could be seen wearing poppies as early as possible out of fear of being branded as disrespectful traitors by a zealous British public infected with sentimentalism. Whenever public figures fall foul of the poppy tradition, we act as though they’re supposed to be role models, and by not wearing a poppy they have supposedly failed. Why? Why is it impossible for public figures to make their own choices without swathes of morons kicking up a fuss about it on Twitter? Better yet, why do people care about what celebrities wear in tacky chat shows?

However poppy fascism manifests itself, we justify it by proclaiming that wearing the poppy is a sign of respect for the war dead. That’s fine, except for the fact that when we focus on the soldiers who died fighting for their country, we end up glossing over the reality of war. At the risk of sounding cold, I should point out that those who choose to fight in a war, past or present, have pretty much signed up for job in which they could get killed. Of course, one could argue that this is the sacrifice of the soldier, but one must one oneself what the soldiers are even fighting for. All modern wars are fought for startlingly ignoble reasons. For example, the current situation in the Middle East was mainly caused by America’s constant interloping in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, and our soldiers are only involved because our government wants to be involved in anything America does. It’s not as though past wars fare much better.

Nowadays, war is only ever fought because it profits some higher powers, be they politicians or big corporations. Now that I think about, it’s no wonder the government loves Poppy Day, because it gives them the opportunity to make war sound romantic and glamorous. Of course, we aren’t as stupid as the government thinks we are. We should all know by now that there’s nothing glamorous about people killing each other, whatever the reason may be. Personally, I have a very big problem with the whole “poppy mania” because outside Remembrance Day, the general consensus of the public is that war is bad, but when it’s November, suddenly we’re all mindlessly chanting support for those who fight in wars. As someone who is firmly opposed to war, I find it disgusting that we in British society push what is ostensibly a symbol of the romantic view of war down our throats every year, and shame those who don’t.

It’s surprisingly easy for them to pluck people’s heartstrings.

All the more jarring is that the poppy-pushing trend is going on as the government is rallying for a new war in Syria, as though the previous war in Afghanistan never happened. We all know how the war in Afghanistan happened, and that it was ultimately pointless for Britain to get involved, but the fact that we hide behind the poppies and the sentimental waltz they inspire guarantees that the government can feel free to pursue future wars knowing that the British public will always support it. After all, to ensure unquestioning support of the military and warfare is the only goal of the poppy drive.

It’s perhaps because of this that the idea of Rememberance Day is losing all meaning. When we observed Remembrance Day a century ago, in the bleak, war-ravaged landscapes of the day, we wanted never again to experience the horrors of war. Those people witnessed the tragedy of a hideously futile war in full bloom. The very idea of glamorizing the Great War might have sounded abominable to those who actually survived the war (though sadly they are no longer with us), and yet that’s what we’re doing every November. I highly doubt that the soldiers of the Great War died so that we could continue to indulge in mindless bloodlust in the name of nationalism and industry, and that is what I feel the red poppy has come to represent, and I am not alone. There are many activists, war veterans, and even a few celebrities who oppose war, and detest the glamorization of war. In the dominant atmosphere of conformity, guilt and propaganda, they appear to be the only voices of reason that actually get heard when the poppy salesmen come around.

Like this:

There has been much talk about the Islamic State, and their current campaign of fear and domination. All the while, there’s news about the West’s attempts to stop them. Despite a series of air bombings from coalition forces, the I.S. have gathered momentum and have demonstrated themselves to be a very serious threat in the Middle East. Today, they are notorious for an extreme wave of human atrocities, the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These include beheading innocent people (and uploading the footage to the Internet), committing mass murder, enslaving women and children, stoning people to death, flinging homosexuals from buildings, capturing the territories of other nations, destroying ancient monuments and cities, and they’ve even carried out crucifixions. If that doesn’t represent evil in the post-modern age, then I have no idea what does.

Mere air bombardments have failed to intimidate the I.S., and as long as they believe themselves to be a caliphate, politics will not work either. As grim as it may sound, I believe that the only way we can stop them is through full-blown war. This sounds grim given that I already outlined my anti-war leanings, but I’ve given this much thought, and I believe that war against I.S. is the only effective solution, as well as the only morally sound solution.

I think I should first start with why I think it’s an effective solution. Clearly the I.S. are fighting with carefully considered military strategy. They’re taking key cities in Iraq and Syria, and they also hold key ports in Libya, a nation that lies geographically close to Italy. If they wanted to, they could probably try and move into Europe, or other parts of the Mediterranean. Given America’s military might, it should stand to reason that America, in a coalition with Britain and other allied nations, should be able to defeat the I.S., but only if we start engaging them on the ground with our weapons. Perhaps the main reason why the I.S. has had such success is because the Middle East has been so thoroughly destabilized by the West’s previous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As ill-advised as it sounds, only the coalition forces have any chance at repelling the I.S., and the local governments are damn near powerless to act against them.

The second, and more difficult part of this, is the moral rationale. Critics would cite the 2003 invasion of Iraq as the example of why a military operation in the Middle East would be a bad idea. As immoral, unjustified, and ineffective as that war was, the current situation is entirely different. As I see it, not only is there a just cause for military action against the I.S. (the just cause would be intervening in the humanitarian crisis the I.S. created), but there’s also the opportunity for the West to clean up the mess they made in Iraq, and perhaps helping to undo the damage they did a decade ago. On top of that, there’s the far more serious issue of the I.S.’s mentality. We’re dealing with a group that sincerely believes that they’re in battle for the end times. People from here and abroad are joining I.S. because they believe they’re succeeding. Only if the West intervenes can we challenge that perception, and hopefully save the lives of those at the threshold of I.S.’s barbarism.

The only question is can the West fight this war ethically? I say this because I still find it difficult to trust that American forces can fight a war with pure integrity in mind, even in spite of the just cause for fighting the Islamic State. Unfortunately, I’m not able to answer that question, but in my opinion, whatever the ethics of fighting another war in the Middle East, I can say with absolutely certainty that this time, we’re the lesser the two evils. After all, it should be illegal to allow the I.S. to continue what they’re doing in the first place, and the sad reality is that force appears to be the only thing they understand, and thus the niceties of politics and diplomacy will be completely ineffective in bringing about justice.

Like this:

I haven’t talked about war a whole lot on this site, mainly because it’s been very hard for me to decide my stance on the issue of war. On the one hand, it results in many, many innocent lives being lost. But on the other hand, it can provide money and jobs, and hey, it wasn’t always that bad.

In the ancient times, there were more honourable reasons for war, and if there weren’t, then at least the conflicting nations were fighting honestly (as in no chemical warfare). Now flash forward to the present, where today we have cowardly methods of fighting, which include chemical warfare, the H-bomb, and even the ability to coax nations into submission by threatening them with the big bad nuclear bomb.

In order to determine my own stance on war, I’m going to list the perceived advantages and disadvantages, weigh them against each other, and then make a rational conclusion. Without further ado, here’s the list.

Advantages

Economic growth – War can strengthen an economy by providing jobs. Also, war allows manufacturing to thrive, especially weapons and ammo manufacturing. In times of conflict, more people buy weapons and ammo, and thus more money changes hands, which benefits the people selling the weapons, and boosts the economy.

Technological advancement – Competition and conflict tend to lead to nations trying to develop better technology than their opponents. Think of the accelerated progress in aviation technology. By the year 1900, we barely had any. By the time World War II had ended, we had fully functional fighter planes. Also, the technology that is created can still be useful after the conflict is over.

You get to play your part in history – History is written when conflict happens, and those who participate in wars play a role in shaping the course of history.

The aftermath of winning – Of course, what happens as a result of victory depends from country to country, but generally it means that they avoid suffering under the yoke of another power, that is if it’s that kind of war.

Disadvantages

The obvious casualties – An inevitable part of war is of course the loss of life. Sadly, lots of the lives that get lost are innocent people who get caught up in the situation, and of course, many opponents of war (and advocates of world peace) tend to only see that side of war.

Hatred and propaganda – War is often used to justify hatred and discrimination against certain groups, which is obviously not good. The opportunity to rile people up against a certain group of people also gives rise to propaganda, as we’ve seen in World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the current Mid-East conflicts.

Environmental damage – Modern warfare has been known to cause damage to the environment. One notable example is the damage done to the oilfields of Kuwait during the Gulf War of the early 90’s. Before the Gulf War, Kuwait’s desert was healthy, in spite of centuries of nomadic grazing, and years of oil development. In the 60’s and 70’s, America sprayed herbicides over the forests of Vietnam in an attempt to deprive guerilla fighters of any cover the trees provided them with. This resulted in numerous toxins sinking into the soil and sea, many plants dying, many animals siring deformed offspring, and numerous other dreadful consequences.

What if the “bad guy” wins? – If a tyrannical nation wins a war, then they can do whatever they want whatever free nation they conquer. I don’t think I need to describe it.

Liberty takes a back seat to patriotism – In times of conflict, nations will want the people to support the war. This is why anyone who criticizes the conflict is seen as a “traitor”. This is most particularly true in America (which is ironically still called the land of the free), where several civil liberties have been occasionally curtailed in the named of patriotism. This was true in World War II, and in Vietnam, and it was true after 9/11, and when the US lands itself in other stupid war, the same will happen again.

It’s just pointless now – In the old days, wars would be fought to restore order, settle scores between rival powers, and for various other reasons. Nowadays, rich nations get bored so easily, that they need to come up with excuses to fight. However, when they do decided to fight, it’s only ever really for the money. The US invaded the Middle East for oil, that was established as a fact years ago. However, the media still tries to convince us that it’s a war being fought in the name of “counter-terrorism”. There’s no real, honourable excuse for war now, especially in the era of automatic weapons.

So now I’ve got four arguments in favour of war, and six arguments against it. Well, I guess I’ve never been supportive of modern warfare, nor have I ever believed the reasons for war. I can enjoy war in fiction and fantasy, but only because in there, it’s meant to be entertainment and nothing else.

Overall, yes, I do oppose war, but not in the way that Hollywood liberals and hippies do, because I do realize that some wars had to be fought in the past. But here’s hoping we don’t have to fight any wars for the wrong reasons in the future.